Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1031 - 1037
1 Aug 2015
da Assunção RE Pollard TCB Hrycaiczuk A Curry J Glyn-Jones S Taylor A

Periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) is a potentially devastating complication after total hip arthroplasty, with historically high rates of complication and failure because of the technical challenges of surgery, as well as the prevalence of advanced age and comorbidity in the patients at risk.

This study describes the short-term outcome after revision arthroplasty using a modular, titanium, tapered, conical stem for PFF in a series of 38 fractures in 37 patients.

The mean age of the cohort was 77 years (47 to 96). A total of 27 patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of at least 3. At a mean follow-up of 35 months (4 to 66) the mean Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was 35 (15 to 48) and comorbidity was significantly associated with a poorer OHS. All fractures united and no stem needed to be revised. Three hips in three patients required further surgery for infection, recurrent PFF and recurrent dislocation and three other patients required closed manipulation for a single dislocation. One stem subsided more than 5 mm but then stabilised and required no further intervention.

In this series, a modular, tapered, conical stem provided a versatile reconstruction solution with a low rate of complications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1031–7.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 84-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 164 - 164
1 Jul 2002
Spicer IDDM Pomeroy DL Schaper L Badenhausen WE Curry J Suthers K
Full Access

The aim of the present study was to assess the outcome of revision surgery, using semiconstrained implants, in the management of tibiofemoral instability complicating primary total knee arthroplasty.

Between Feb 1987 and Oct 2000, 177 primary, unconstrained, surface replacement total knee arthroplasties were revised at our institution. Instability was the commonest reason for revision surgery and accounted for 22.6 % of overall revisions. Excluding tertiary referrals, instability necessitated revision surgery in 0.31% of 1918 primary total knee arthroplasties performed ‘in-house’ during the same period.

The results of 17 revision total knee arthroplasties using semiconstrained prostheses are presented. Six operations were performed for sagittal plane instability, 5 for coronal and 6 for multiplanar instability. 10 revisions were performed using the PFC ‘stabilised plus’ prostheses, and a further 7 with TC3 prostheses. 17 patients (13 F: 4 M), aged 48–83 years (average 67.8 years) underwent revisions, between 9–132 m from the date of the index arthroplasty. At an average follow-up of 36m, the Knee Society score had risen from 31.2 points preoperatively to 60.9 at last follow-up (LFU) [Joint score from 47.5 preop to 81.5 at LFU/Function score: from 14.4 to 39.7 at LFU]. Radiolucency rates were insignificant and at LFU no joints showed evidence of osteolysis, implant subsidence or polyethylene wear. One unresurfaced patella spontaneously fractured 10m postoperatively and one patella showed persistent subluxation. There were no other significant complications.

The present short term study attests to the efficacy of semi-constrained implants in the revision of unstable primary arthroplasties. However, in the longer term, implant longevity remains undetermined.